THe tarmon 17-50 non VC is not without issues either, live view AF is unusable for example and it has something strange going on with the blue color. 18-105 is not one bit worse than the 16-85vr, when image quality is concerned, I compared them against each other extensively. Let's see what else, oh yes d7000 metering is only better indoors or outside at golden hour, in high contrast situations it's consistency is rather random, not better than the entry level Nikons, maybe even worse. AF system is more versatile, but not one bit more accurate.

msmoto said:
Congratulations! I think you will find that even though the 18-105 is called a "kit lens" it will perform as well as some of the ones costing five times as much....Just be careful as he mount is not a sturdy as some of the pro glass. But you decision is very good.

ya i noticed the fact it wasn't as sturdy but OMG the fluidity of being able to shoot pics last night was amazing it made my job so much easier and more enjoyable! and as far as the "kit lens" goes i totally agree with I've used other kit lenses and this has out performed any ordinary kit lens as well as some more supposedly "better" lenses I've tried

im deff so happy about my decision!

TaoTeJared said:
Sigma's lenses are certainly hit and miss. If you are willing to send them in a few times to get the focus right they can be really good options. I do like their EX "Pro" series lenses. Honestly I stick with Nikon so I don't have to worry about any issues.

The one thing about 3rd party OS/VC is that it takes longer than Nikon's VR for it to kick in - Similar to Nikon's 1st gen VR. The Tamron lenses do take a split sec more I have noticed but if you wait, they work really well.

Good point - I was assuming you would buy it - make sure to do so - then Run for the hills! Or get some nookie - whatever floats your boat, but I would take that one if the price was cheap.

Maybe I don't demand so much. I only have first gen VR lenses.

Congratulations! I think you will find that even though the 18-105 is called a "kit lens" it will perform as well as some of the ones costing five times as much....Just be careful as he mount is not a sturdy as some of the pro glass. But you decision is very good.

so i finally made a decision i got the d7000 with the 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 lens :) I've been testing it out all day and it seems pretty amazing I'm loving but the real test will be when i go to work tonight!

i think I'm gonna also get the 35mm f/1.8 next week not sure about that one yet though

Sigma's lenses are certainly hit and miss. If you are willing to send them in a few times to get the focus right they can be really good options. I do like their EX "Pro" series lenses. Honestly I stick with Nikon so I don't have to worry about any issues.

The one thing about 3rd party OS/VC is that it takes longer than Nikon's VR for it to kick in - Similar to Nikon's 1st gen VR. The Tamron lenses do take a split sec more I have noticed but if you wait, they work really well.

zhinsara said:
Be a bit of a problem when she's not your SO anymore though and wants the camera back. *touch wood* (I'm assuming for the worst here, it's just my nature to do so for planning purposes)

Good point - I was assuming you would buy it - make sure to do so - then Run for the hills! Or get some nookie - whatever floats your boat, but I would take that one if the price was cheap.

TaoTeJared said:
I have had the exact opposite experience. I went through 3 Sigma's before I gave up (again on that brand) with back, front, way out of focus issues. That is lens sampling for sure, but it happens with Sigma more then any other brand in my experience.
I really like the Tamron and thought it was tack sharp.

While your experience is true with most Siggys, it doesn't apply to the Sigma 17-50mm 2.8. It is surprisingly sharp while having really good quality control. I've read lots of reviews saying other Sigmas having really bad QC for several lenses, but this lens barely had any complains.

Be a bit of a problem when she's not your SO anymore though and wants the camera back. *touch wood* (I'm assuming for the worst here, it's just my nature to do so for planning purposes)

Take the D700 and don't look back.

so i kind of feel a bit bad doing this it goes against what i stand for taking handouts but my (i guess i will call it girlfriend or at least soon to be girlfriend again lol) has a d700 that she has never used once (so sad i know letting that thing sit in a closet)... who thinks i should let her give that to me or go ahead and stick with getting the D7000

menbarphotos said:
the question is will i get better results with the d3000 body and 16-85mm f/2.8 or with a d7000 and a 18-105mm f/3.5

Hi,

The general consensus is that your type of photography would improve by a higher ISO body such as a D7000.

Personally, I like the consistency of using Nikon lenses, but then, that's me.

Buying what I can afford over time as I need it, when I need, has done right by me.

If there has been a 'price/quality' decision tipping point, it has been at the f1.2/f1.4/f1.8 in the really fast lenses. My work lenses were the very fast ones, but for my personal lenses, I have gone for the more economically f1.8 and haven't looked back. While there was a difference in the output, I don't find _for what I do_ the cost would warrant it.

I, too, would suggest that you, in the fullness of time, make sure that an 85mm f1.8 is in your kit, along with a 50mm f1.8 and a 50mm f1.8, and possibly a 105mm f2.8 or a 70-200mm f2.8 (the latter costing more than the D7000). As someone mentioned, it's a pain to change lenses, but narrowing the DOF wide open and separating the subject is very nice from time to time, too.

Good luck with your decision and my best,

Mike

TaoTeJared said:
D7000 and a 18-105mm f/3.5.

I have never heard of the "16-85mm f/2.8" but either way the D7000 is more than a step above the D3000 in metering alone that will help you tremendously. The AF will also be more accurate and quicker to find focus.

Camera's are not just sensors, there is a ton of stuff that gets downgraded in the lower consumer lines that all effect image quality.

my bad i meant the d3000 with the 24-70mm f/2.8

D7000 and a 18-105mm f/3.5.

I have never heard of the "16-85mm f/2.8" but either way the D7000 is more than a step above the D3000 in metering alone that will help you tremendously. The AF will also be more accurate and quicker to find focus.

Camera's are not just sensors, there is a ton of stuff that gets downgraded in the lower consumer lines that all effect image quality.

the question is will i get better results with the d3000 body and 16-85mm f/2.8 or with a d7000 and a 18-105mm f/3.5

menbarphotos said:
what i really need to change my lens for because right now I'm using a 18-55mm kit lens (i think f/4.5-5.6) with an sb-700 flash

I think you have answered your own question
I have not used the Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 but it gets very good reviews
you are not going to get the quality of the 50mm f1.4 with an f5.6 lens even if it is on a D7000

sevencrossing said:
nice stuff, which lens have you used most, looks like quite a few are with the 50mm 1.4

ya a most of the stage shots are with the 50m f/1.4 i feel that it gets the best lighting. otherwise for close up of people is what i really need to change my lens for because right now I'm using a 18-55mm kit lens (i think f/4.5-5.6) with an sb-700 flash

MikeWhis said:
Don't get the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 VC, it is not sharp and has AF issues. The one without VC is better without any of those issues. Or just get the Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 OS, none of those issues + OS.

I have had the exact opposite experience. I went through 3 Sigma's before I gave up (again on that brand) with back, front, way out of focus issues. That is lens sampling for sure, but it happens with Sigma more then any other brand in my experience.
I really like the Tamron and thought it was tack sharp.

My usual mantra is get the best glass first, and upgrade your camera when you can. However, in special circumstances, I would change my tune. I don't know your actual situation with lighting, but it seems that high ISO may be more important to you in the clubs than critical sharpness and IQ from the glass. I also get that you don't have $5,000 to spend. Get the D7000 and affordable, but good, wide glass. As your business grows, you can upgrade either and/or both camera body and glass as the circumstances dictate.

From what I can tell, menbarphotos, you at least get a lot of light in the venues you're shooting.

I wouldn't worry about a D4 size body. I shoot with a gripped D300s with flash on it. If anything it makes the girls want to pose even more, and honestly, gear matters when you have clients.

We just finished cleaning up from shooting another DJ, Arty in a nightclub. Horrendous lighting, and there were restrictions on flash. The benefits in metering and AF that a higher end body definitely do make a difference when you need it.

I disagree with the choice of the Tamron 17-50 VC, the VC in that lens takes a while to settle down, so it can actually cause you to miss shots while you wait for your image to be stabilized (it's that or blurry images). The non-vc version, or the sigma one would be a good choice, coupled to a D7000. Throw on a few fast primes and you're good.

framer said:
...get that D4.... it should be good for 10+ years.

Yes I know I suggest a D4
but clubs and concerts are not a very camera friendly environment, even for a D4,
Stick with something you can afford

Bland said:
Thanks for the info on the D2hs, framer. I've been wanting a full frame to do wide angle concerts shots with and this would be something I could afford.

D2hs is a DX size sensor

To the OP:
I thought you wanted to keep your costs down. Personally I'd beg, borrow, give up smoking, drinking, DD coffee, find a cheap girl friend and get that D4. If you get it now it should be good for 10+ years. If you start down the path of the D7000 you'll want a new body ever 2 years. The D4 will get you the images that you will miss, using lessor bodies, which makes you more money. When I was in school I figured a way to move up to an F2 system. Two of the lenses I still use. If you think about it a $10 - 20 grand investment to go into a business is cheap. It also can be tax deductible if used as in your own photography business.

framer

Don't get the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 VC, it is not sharp and has AF issues. The one without VC is better without any of those issues. Or just get the Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 OS, none of those issues + OS.

My suggestion would be a D7000, Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC, 35mm 1.8 & 85mm 1.8. A 12-24 or even a fisheye would come a close second group of lenses.

The D7000 is a great camera and from what you are moving from will get you the additional technology of a better Metering and AF system along with the abilities of the sensor. In low light, the AF and metering performance means just as much as the sensor and helps with any glass you put one it.

Also don't forget that you will need some DOF as a photo of a band member never looks good if only the once side is in focus (unless intended.) F2.8 - F4 would give you enough to cover the full person. Most concert images I see fail many times due to this and become average. When you do want to intend the really shallow DOF, the 35, 50, & 85 all will make great images. The 35 give you a great 50mm equiv and the 85mm will give you the added reach to obtain ppl on the far side of the stage.

Concerts actually have a lot of light - if you spot meter and you can really work with 1/50-1/100 @ f4. Too many use the matrix or averaged metering and overexpose which leads to the blurry or "shaky" images.

I think a D7000, Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC, 35mm 1.8 & 85mm 1.8 is a hell of a set up for that one can do almost anything with for concerts and anything else.

Go for a 2.8 zoom, you'll never regret!

menbarphotos said:
im not sure why my link to my Facebook page was removed but if anyone wants to search it on Facebook just search menbarphotos

nice stuff, which lens have you used most, looks like quite a few are with the 50mm 1.4